Workplace Strategies Watercooler 2025: The EEOC’s Updated Workplace Harassment Guidance One Year Later

Announcer: Welcome to the Ogletree Deakins podcast, where we provide listeners with brief discussions about important workplace legal issues. Our podcasts are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. You can subscribe through your favorite podcast service. Please consider rating this podcast so we can get your feedback and improve our programs. Please enjoy the podcast.

Sherry Talton: Well, good afternoon. Welcome to our podcast replay of the EEOC’s Updated Workplace Harassment Guidance, and why it still matters. With me today, I have Fiona Ong from our Baltimore office. Let’s get started. What is the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace? Fiona, can you let us know what we’re talking about here?

Fiona Ong: Sure thing, Sherry. Thanks so much. This was released to great fanfare in April of 2024, and it was supposed to be the EEOC’s definitive and comprehensive resource on harassment, and it replaced a bunch of previous guidance documents on harassment. What it says is that this enforcement guidance, like other EEOC guidance documents, doesn’t have the force in effective law and is not meant to bind to the public in any way. But, as you and I both know, that it actually serves as a roadmap for how the EEOC is supposed to investigate harassment complaints and enforce Title VII. Now, the EEOC itself was not unanimous in issuing the guidance. What’s actually in the guidance is it talks first about the covered basis of discrimination.
It reviews a legal framework for harassment claims. It also talks about when employers are going to be liable for harassment. Here, the EEOC discusses what employers should and shouldn’t do to prevent and address harassment, and they provide recommendations on harassment policies, complaint processes, training, and investigations. The guidance also talks about systemic harassment, meaning when harassment affects multiple employees or there’s a pattern or practice of harassment. What we got all excited about as employment lawyers, Sherry, is the new focuses in the guidance. A lot of these concepts had been percolating out there, but now the EEOC pulled them all together and formally listed them out. Some of the more interesting ones were sexual orientation and gender identity, or SOGI, and we’re going to talk a little bit more about that in a second.

Sherry Talton: That one was definitely a big rabble rouser and got a lot of attorneys and others in the community very excited about that.

Fiona Ong: Extremely excited. I think you’re going to talk a little bit more about the fallout from that in a moment. Some other kinds of harassment that it talks about is “intra-class harassment,” meaning harassment based on a complainant’s protected characteristic, even where the harasser is a member of the same protected class. Sherry, this was the first time I’d seen this actual term used, even though that concept had been out there for a while, but I don’t know about you.

Sherry Talton: Yeah. That was new to me as well. In the past, I had always heard it as “same actor” or “same category” harassment, those types of terms.

Fiona Ong: Yeah. Another type of harassment they talk about is “intersectional harassment,” meaning harassment based on a combination of protected characteristics like against older women. You have age and sex in that type of harassment. Some other expanded concepts, for example, there’s no C.R.O.W.N. Act, which is a law that protects natural hairstyles and hair textures, but there are lots of state and local laws that have been enacted on that topic. The EEOC just takes that and drops it into an example of race discrimination in its guidance. The EEOC also talks about associational discrimination. Now, the ADA specifically prohibits discrimination based on an employee’s association or relationship with a disabled person, but the EEOC jumped on that and expanded that to association with any protected class.
The guidance also talks about when off-duty conduct can rise to the level of illegal harassment in the workplace. It talks about technological advances on how harassment can be accomplished through social media or virtually, so remote harassment. But the big news, of course, was SOGI and also pregnancy, in fact. As you might remember, the Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that an employer who fires an employee because if their sexual orientation or transgender status violates Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination. The EEOC took that, and they gave us all kinds of examples in the guidance of when conduct is going to constitute harassment on the basis of SOGI.

Sherry Talton: I think for a lot of commentators, employers and others who have taken interest in this guidance, it’s also quite confusing because this position that Ms. Lucas is taking and that these developments have been taking are inconsistent with that Bostock case that you mentioned. I think this is why it’s generated so much concern.

Fiona Ong: Yeah. Well, of course, when she made that statement back in April 2024, she was in the minority, so she really…it didn’t have much effect. Yeah. Different now. The other thing that really made waves were statements that the EEOC made in the section on pregnancy harassment, and they specifically said that Title VII prohibits harassment on the basis of an employee’s decision to have or not have an abortion. That really got some hackles rising as well.

Sherry Talton: Yeah. Absolutely it did. One of the factors, I think, for the EEOC to add that into their guidance was obviously the passage of the related Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which is separate from Title VII, but incorporates some of the same concepts that we see in this section on pregnancy in the EEOC’s guidance.

Fiona Ong: Since the harassment guidance then came out, we’ve had the EEOC and some other agencies building on that, but I will say that none of that guidance touches on SOGI or pregnancy. It’s been really interesting, but, and I will say that those guidance documents are—even though most of them are targeted towards the construction industry—do contain information that’s generally applicable to employers. There is some value to that. But of course, we now come to President Trump’s inauguration on January 20th and everything that happened after that. Sherry, you want to share with us what happened next?

Sherry Talton: Wow. There was so much. It really raises the question, is this guidance still in force? Is it still active? As lawyers often do, we give a noncommittal answer of, well, yes and no. Why yes? Well, the document itself, on its face, the EEOC guidance states that it can only be modified by a majority vote of the EEOC’s commissioners, which has not happened as of today. The reason that so many people are saying no, it’s no longer in force. Some of those are… Number one, some of the things that you’ve talked about before, Andrea Lucas now being appointed, having taken this position that’s contrary to the 2024 guidance. Also, some lawsuits have been filed to try to stop this guidance from being enforced any longer. The main lawsuit there was one filed by the state of Tennessee and about 18 other states, but that court hasn’t issued any substantive rulings yet, and so it hasn’t really gone anywhere.
There’s just been a lot of activity at the EEOC that’s hampered the enforcement. When we say that it has to have a majority vote of the commissioners in order to modify the EEOC’s guidance from 2024, it’s important for us to understand how the EEOC is set up. The EEOC is made up of five commissioners, including a chair, and the President appoints the chair and the vice chair, but no more than three commissioners can be from the same political party. When President Trump took office, he eliminated that majority as his very first step. He appointed Andrea Lucas, who we talked about previously was the dissenter on the guidance in 2024, as the acting chair of the EEOC. She took that job the very next day, January 21st, 2025. She won’t have a majority of Republican members just yet, but there are a lot of commentators who believe that at any point now, President Trump will appoint at least one more Republican commissioner.
The second step President Trump took to eliminate the majority was to terminate Commissioner Jocelyn Samuels, whose term was set to expire in 2026, and Commissioner Charlotte Burrows, whose term was set to expire in 2025. He also fired the general counsel of the EEOC, who has not filed a lawsuit on those terms because it’s widely understood that President Trump had the ability to terminate the general counsel. But Ms. Samuels has filed a case, and many commentators believe that she has a very low chance of success because Title VII simply doesn’t give any guidance on the requirements for removing any EEOC commissioner, which is a little different from the NLRB, because its operating statute, the NLRA, gives specific directions on when and how to remove an NLRB member.

Fiona Ong: Yeah. That was a really big deal, because traditionally, though, the sitting president has never terminated commissioners before their term has been up. They just waited until the term was up and then appointed the next person, whomever they wanted to appoint at that time. For President Trump to come in and fire sitting commissioners was really a big deal and very, very unusual.

Sherry Talton: Absolutely. Some would say it’s a stroke of genius. Others would say it may end up delaying things more because of the litigation, and I think only time will tell. But President Trump wasn’t done acting in trying to combat this EEOC guidance. He also issued Executive Order 14168, and that order is called Defending Women from Gender Ideology, Extremism, and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.

Fiona Ong: Wow.

Sherry Talton: That executive order, yeah, obviously very loaded language in the title, but it is descriptive of what it does. It directs the agencies to enforce discrimination laws to protect men and women as biologically distinct sexes without any acknowledgement of sexual orientation or gender identity, and it directed the agencies to remove all statements from policies, regulations, promoting gender ideology. Well, that obviously would apply to the EEOC as a federal agency, so this executive order is incompatible with the 2024 harassment guidance. Consistent with the dissent that Acting Chair Lucas put out before the April 2024 guidance got enacted, she wanted to make sure that she was acting consistently with this Executive Order 14168.
She issued her own statement, and her statement is also called Removing Gender Ideology and Restoring the EEOC’s Role of Protecting Women in the Workplace. For all intents and purposes, this is the de facto marching orders for the EEOC. She took some other actions, as well, besides just issuing her own individual guidance. She initiated a review of the EEOC’s main poster that all employers look to called Know Your Rights. She also directed that all charges of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation with the EEOC that involve allegations of SOGI-related conduct be referred to the for further review. Then, later, she dismissed almost every lawsuit that the EEOC filed in the prior year alleging discrimination against transgender workers. We can see that she’s carrying through her road map with those actions.

Fiona Ong: Where does the leave employers? Golly. Well, you and I recently attended some EEOC trainings on harassment because we were curious, what is the EEOC saying at this point in time on the harassment guidance? In the one that I sat in on, it was conducted by the lone remaining Democratic Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal. Poor Commissioner Kotagal, all by yourself. The training that she presented was really all about the enforcement guidance. She briefly mentioned Bostock, but then she really moved on quickly to other parts of the guidance and talked about a lot of these examples with all these new forms of harassment that I mentioned earlier. The bottom line is maybe they’ll get rid of the guidance, but I think in terms of actually carrying through with their enforcement activities, a lot of that will still, I think, hold true.

Sherry Talton: Absolutely. My thought from the training that I took was similar to yours, and I suspect that if there is a modification of the 2024 guidance, it will probably be limited almost exclusively to that section on SOGI, would be my guess.

Fiona Ong: Yeah. But we certainly can expect the enforcement focus to change because Andrea Lucas has a very different approach to the EEOC, as we’ve already heard, than her predecessors. She’s actually articulated some new priorities on her bio on the EEOC website. I’m going to quote, again, just because it’s such a very telling statement. What she says is that her new priorities are, “rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination, protecting American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination, defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights, including women’s rights to single sex spaces at work, protecting workers from religious bias and harassment, including anti-Semitism, and remedying other areas of recent under enforcement.” Those are some very strong words, again.
From there, I think we’re going to see a lot of emphasis on religious discrimination, and beyond anti-Semitism, right? I think we’re going to see emphasis on the religious rights and accommodations that conflict with LGBTQ interests, as well as pro-Christian protections. There’s also going to be more and more emphasis on not challenging the sincerity of an employee’s religious beliefs. We’ve already seen that in the cases, especially connected with the COVID vaccine. Then the other type of emphasis that I think we’re going to see a lot more of is what has traditionally been called reverse discrimination. Because with all the focus on anti-DEI from President Trump and the red states, we’re going to see those cases from white or male or white male employees that they’re being subjected to harassment. That terminology of reverse discrimination is really no longer in favor. Right, Sherry?

Sherry Talton: Absolutely. I would say to further your point that the focus is going to shift to highlight religious discrimination, in particular, I think you’re hitting the nail on the head because Commissioner Lucas just recently selected Shannon Royce as her chief of staff. Ms. Royce is the former president of the Christian Employers Alliance, so very much in line with the new focus that Chairman Lucas has set out here. We have to say she’s being very clear about what the priorities are going to be, but when we do talk about that second category of, quote, “reverse discrimination,” the EEOC’s guidance states what I think most attorneys in this industry have said for many years, which is there’s really no such thing as reverse discrimination. It’s just discrimination.

Fiona Ong: Yeah. It’ll be interesting. There’s actually a Supreme Court case pending right now where the question is whether somebody who’s bringing one of these quote, unquote, “reverse discrimination,” claims has a higher bar to meet in order to prove discrimination. My gut is telling me that’s not the way the Supreme Court is going to rule. They’re going to find that it’s the same bar as any other discrimination claim.

Sherry Talton: I think your gut is right on that. Certainly, it’s in line with what the majority of the legal commentators online I’m seeing are opining on this. Then, obviously, if you go and look at the Students of Fair Admissions case by the Supreme Court, you would see that this position would be somewhat inconsistent with what they did in that case, as well.

Fiona Ong: Yeah. Well, with all of that, Sherry, why don’t you talk about where this leaves employers in terms of practical tips from the guidance?

Sherry Talton: I think in some regards, it can be a little tricky, but the guidance itself does give us a little bit of help on this point. Number one, there’s 192 pages in this guidance.

Fiona Ong: It’s a lot.

Sherry Talton: … a vast… Yeah. A huge chunk of that is examples of specific scenarios. The first thing that employers can take away from this is go ahead and read that guidance. Even if it gets changed at some point, those scenarios will educate employers on how to handle internal complaints and how plaintiffs’ lawyers and courts may address certain situations if they arise. Also, the guidance tells us develop an effective anti-harassment policy, implement an effective complaint and reporting process for when those policies get violated, conduct effective training. That training needs to reflect the dynamics of your work site and your industry, as well as the understanding of what the law is from the actual law, which is Title VII and the Bostock case, not the EEOC’s guidance. Then, whenever a problem does arise under those policies to make sure that there are effective investigations.

Fiona Ong: The guidance actually is really helpful because it gives specific recommendations on what makes an effective policy, an effective complaint process, effective training, effective investigations, and so there are a lot of really good takeaways for employers there.

Sherry Talton: Absolutely. But it’s certainly in the guidance is available still on the EEOC’s website.

Fiona Ong: Anything else?

Sherry Talton: Yeah. Absolutely, the number one, I think, potential landmine for employers is don’t forget state law and municipal law. States and cities have a lot of statutes and regulations that directly relate to these topics, particularly to the SOGI protections of gender identity and sexual orientation. There is a hodgepodge of different state laws and municipal laws that recognize some or all of the things that the guidance…or the commentary from Chair Lucas and the executive order from President Trump go against. Remember your state municipal law, and then stay tuned for other developments from the executive orders and the EEOC guidance from the courts.

Fiona Ong: Well, this has been great, Sherry. Thanks so much for sharing this time with me.

Sherry Talton: Likewise. I really enjoy talking about this because I’ll tell you, I think it’s an area where it’s really difficult for people to know what are they supposed to do now? What do we do with this competing guidance and these competing cases and statutes? Again, we just have to watch and wait and see how it all shakes out. It’ll be interesting.

Fiona Ong: Interesting times.

Sherry Talton: Yeah. Have a good one.

Fiona Ong: Thanks so much for joining us, everyone.

Sherry Talton: Thank you.

Announcer: Thank you for joining us on the Ogletree Deakins podcast. You can subscribe to our podcasts on Apple Podcasts or through your favorite podcast service. Please consider rating and reviewing so that we may continue to provide the content that covers your needs. Remember, the information in this podcast is for informational purposes only and is not to be construed as legal advice.